As the article discusses in detail, if the US actually cares about freedom of navigation, the war was a massive own goal because it looks extremely likely to grant the current Iranian regime de facto control of the Strait.

▲

avereveard 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran already had the strait in ransom, directly and indirectly with proxy receiving weapons. You don't get to ignore that part and call this a own goal, since inaction led to the same effective results.

▲

sveme 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The strait was navigable until three weeks ago. There are very few conceivable paths towards reestablishing this. This is absolutely not the same effective result.

▲

avereveard 12 hours ago | parent [-]

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/houthi-red-sea-a...

Mhm

▲

orwin 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It seems you can't read a map. And btw it's very different targets, Hormuz vessel contain oil, gas and fertiliser for the Asian market. The red see is mostly foodstuff, cattle and Asian good for the European market. Way less impactful

▲

Thiez 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You realize that the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf are different places, right? Your link does not support your argument.

	▲	10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

ozgrakkurt 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same effective results as in it was causing constant global inflation and instability?

▲

ardit33 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What are you talking about? The strait was open, and tankers were not paying tolls as they do now.

They held the threat of closing it, as a deterrent of an attack, and once attacked, they did just that.

You either live in a parallel universe, or are just spewing here propaganda.

	▲	avereveard 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/houthi-red-sea-a... Lol there were routine attcaks every time things weren't going their way. Whos been in a parallel universe? And never said closed. I said ransom.